Famously, the three men emerged with completely different ideas about what sort of critter was being groped. This morning’s letters seem to be discussing completely different topics.

The first letter says that the command or suggestion, “Check your privilege,” is an “ad hominem attack” which “sabotages debate.” Fortgang seemed to make a similar claim at the start of his world-famous essay.

The second letter writer seems to be groping a different part of the elephant.

He agrees that the directive, “Check your privilege,” acts as a type of “conversational kryptonite.” But his main point is quite different: He seems to say that a sound moral upbringing constitutes a privilege too, and it’s a good thing to have.

Or something. In our view, this writer’s point isn’t enormously clear.

Already, we are off in the weeds, weeds which grew rather high in the original essay by Fortgang. That said, we were most struck by this morning’s third letter, which seemed to be groping an ancient part of the pachyderm.

LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (5/12/14): The young man profiled in your article is too quick to dismiss the point about privilege. I am 75 and like him grew up in Westchester County, New York. My teachers reminded us frequently of the privileged life we were leading. We had the best teachers, involved parents, and many field trips to museums, concert halls and theaters in New York City. We were a very fortunate cohort.

This young man needs to get out of his soft surroundings and see how most of the population lives.

This writer says that young Fortgang is “too quick to dismiss the point about privilege.” The famous freshman should “get out of his soft surroundings and see how” the other 99 percent lives, the letter writer says.

Those judgments may be accurate! It all depends on what “the point” is taken to be. It also depends on Fortgang’s actual views, which weren’t expressed with any great clarity in his original essay.

That said, almost everyone could be more sensitive to other people’s situations and circumstances. That’s even true of Katie McDonough! Surely Fortgang, a college freshman, has a lot he could learn.

That said, we were struck by the writer’s recollections of her own upbringing in the 1950s:

Like Fortgang, this letter writer grew up in (largely) affluent Westchester County. We chuckled as she recalled her teachers describing the privileged life she and her classmates leading—privilege which started with the fact that her teachers were amazingly good!

Put that minor point to the side. Back in the 1950s, did her teachers really remind her of “the privileged life [she was] leading?” Was that the language they used?

It’s possible! But according to the world’s leading authority, the current language of “privilege” was largely invented and promulgated starting in 1965. By June 1969, the New York Times was on the case, reporting that SDS was calling “for an all-out fight against ‘white skin privileges.’ ”

That doesn’t mean there’s anything “wrong” with the language of “privilege” or “skin privilege,” or even with the language of “whitesplaining,” “mansplaining” or the more common “Salonsplaining.”

It doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with advising someone to “check his privilege” in some situation. Appropriately stated, that may constitute good sound advice!

It does make us wonder if that third letter writer’s recollection is accurate. Was she told the she was living “a privileged life?” Or was she possibly told that she had “all the advantages”—that she was part of “a very fortunate cohort,” language she herself recalls?

For starters, here’s why we ask:

In 1963, Phil Ochs wrote an anthem of the era. His famous song was called, “There But For Fortune.”

Ochs didn’t write a song called, “There But For Privilege.” To see Joan Baez singing his anthem in real time, you can just click here.

(Baez’s recording was a Top Ten hit in the U.K. But then, everybody recorded the song, including Chad and Jeremy!)

Does the possible change in language matter? If a change in language has occurred, could it be that the language of “privilege” is more instructive than the language of “advantage” and “good fortune?”

Could the language of “privilege” possibly be less helpful in our ingoing debates?

Suddenly, “privilege” is extremely hot. The concept is spawning a lot of discussions.

That said, no two people seem to be groping the same pachyderm in these discussions. We’ll discuss aspects of this ongoing Babel all week.

Where does confusion come from? In our sprawling national discourse, we have that critter in spades.

63 comments:

Privilege might have a greater connotation of permanence or rigidity than fortune. Fortune can change at the drop of a hat, but the privileged do not let those privileges go without a fight. Not coming down on one side or the other of the helpful/harmful question, though.

The blogger's brain is melting down, civilization is going to hell in a hand-basket.

'Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!The dead rising from the grave!Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

'

Whats next -did they tell blogger's hero Zimmerman 'to stay in his car'?

Many people today might disagree that alcoholism or homelessness are necessitated by fate. In the 60's I knew that there were no circumstances under which I might become an alcoholic -- because I am from an Irish family chock full of examples of what happens when you drink.

This is the heart of liberalism vs conservatism. Those who have made different, arguably more difficult choices in their lives during adverse circumstances are not so willing to chalk up alcohlism and destitution to fate.

Character used to be taught in schools, admired, exemplified by main characters in films and especially children's books. I saw an article today that said on average high school students read for pleasure twice a year. That explains both low ACT scores and the sense that today's world revolves around privilege (bestowed by society) not effort (under the control of each and every one of us). The latter is empowering. The former fosters dependence and fatalism, like that exemplified by Och's song.

That said, I am not a conservative politically because I believe that people's efforts to improve their lives should be helped along by collective action of our government, especially since communities no longer have the ability to help out. No one survives alone and not everyone has sufficient friends and family with the income to help them deal with life's disasters.

To see how silly the focus on privilege is, let's consider privilege in athletics. I wasn't privileged to have particularly good athletic skills, nor was I privileged to have athletic instruction or training from any source when I was growing up.

Therefore, what? Well, therefore, I'm not a good athlete. But, does my lack of privilege gives me any kind of superiority over others who were more privileged athletically? I can't see how.

No, but when the athlete who had those advantages laughs at you and ridicules you because of your lack of skill, you might wish he would "check his privilege" -- i.e., keep his skewed views of what others should be able to do to himself and STFU.

It is a talent that bestows privilege. Just as white skin isn't a privilege it is a biological condition -- one that confers social status in our society.

But I disagree with David's assumption that he couldn't acquire more athletic skill with practice. There are a whole lot of people out there with no coaches and no training who nevertheless worked hard and became strong athletes. They had strong motivation. I think that is partly what people admire about athletes, beyond their actual performance of their sport.

Talent doesn't bestow privilege, as D'Leisha can tell you. Talent + opportunity + good fortune earns rewards through doing the hard work of developing that talent. Privilege doesn't work that way. It's bestowed (or is conferred) for being. There are Yale alumni who got into Yale because they were smart and talented, worked to get a high GPA and had good days on SAT tests. George W Bush is a Yale alumnus because he was born George W Bush. The latter is an example of privilege. I'm not saying that W should be ashamed of that privilege -- he didn't choose his parents -- or that whatever work he did to get his gentleman's-C diploma isn't his own. But as Ann Richards used to say about him (and which applies to Tal Fortgang and his ilk), he was born on third base and thought he'd hit a triple.

deadrat, I agree that George Bush is Yale alum, because he was born GW Bush. His Harvard MBA might not have happened either, without his background. However, Bush did successfully get his desired degrees in both institutions, (That's more than Al Gore did in his graduate studies in journalism and divinity, at Vanderbilt.)

Barack Obama is a Columbia alum, probably aided by affirmative action. Perhaps his race helped him get into Harvard Law School. We don't his grades or his SAT scores. Obama certainly deserves credit for doing the work and getting the degrees.

In short, I see a parallel between Bush and Obama. Both men were aided by something that they didn't do. Both got Ivy League Bachelor's degrees and Harvard post-graduate degrees. Bush's parentage most likely helped him get the Presidential nomination. Obama's race most likely helped him get the Presidential nomination. So, deadrat, would you agree that Bush and Obama were both privileged?

Sometimes I wonder if you have some sort of cognitive problem that makes you unable follow a line of argument. Is that the case?

Somehow you must think that I'm arguing that the WPE is a dunce and that Al Gore isn't. Or that Obama's race had no influence on his nomination or that Obama never had the benefit of privilege. It's true that WPE is the Prince of Dunces, and Al Gore is not. It's also true that you have no facts to support your claim that Obama didn't deserve admission to Columbia. (But as Bill Maher points out, "A black man getting into college. That is suspicious.")

None of that is germane. The topic of discussion is the effect of privilege on one's political outlook. Let's even make the absurd assumption that Obama coasted through his academic life on the wings of affirmative action, and that he's the beneficiary of as much cushy privilege as the WPE. Somehow, Obama doesn't want to not extend unemployment benefits because he was once poor and worked hard and made things work so the unemployed just need to suck it up.

(W)orst (P)resident (E)ver. My pet name for the worst President to hold office, including Benjamin Franklin, who, as you may or may not know, was the only President of the United States who was never President of the United States.

The "that said" cancer continues to grow here, even to the point of incorrect usage.

Somerby never, ever makes a mistake. Even when it is pointed out to him that the NCES expressly says it considers the low-income data based on eligibility for free or reduced lunch to be an indicator of the poverty level of a school, he must continue to put "low income" in quotation marks and point out that it is not the same thing as "poverty." He is assuming that the U.S. Government's technical definition of poverty -- the official poverty level published by HHS -- is the only valid usage of the term, even though the NCES disagrees. So does the OECD, the international organization of leading countries, which considers incomes of 70% of median income to be at a poverty level; the 185% of official poverty level income that qualifies a student for a reduced lunch is less than 70% of median income for a comparable U.S. family unit. Are the sarcasm quotes supposed to mean that an income far below median income is not really "low income"?

Somerby also seems not to get the fact that the error he is heroically spotting -- that eligibility for free or reduced lunch is not the same as the official published poverty rate -- is pointless. He has used it mainly to push back against Diane Ravitch and others who have pointed out that the high incidence of poverty in U.S.schools significantly skews U.S. scores downward on international tests compared to countries with low rates of poverty. Whenever he sees this, Somerby puffs out his chest and triumphantly declares that the income guidelines for free or reduced lunch are not the same as the official poverty level. Once again, of course, the NCES, in fact, considers that 75% free and reduced lunch in a school to be an indicator of a school with high poverty. Accordingly, when commentators like Ravitch use the same language used by the NCES, they are correct to do so. either that, or NCES is poisoning the national discourse.

Beyond that, however, there is poor logic in the criticism. If the scores for schools with such levels of low income score that much below more affluent schools, imagine how much greater the difference would be for schools with 75% of the students from households below the official, published poverty rate. It's a pointless distinction when the data presented according to the Somerby Rules would only make the point even more clearly. Or perhaps according to those rules we are supposed to tell the family of four living on $25,000 a year to stop the belly-aching because they're not poor.

If he stops criticizing the people who make a legitimate point about comparing the U.S. to other countries, and stops putting "low income" in quotation marks as if he were some kind of right-wing loon who thinks it's a piece of cake to raise a family of four on $44,000 a year when the housing and car costs probably take well over 50% of that, then fine, there will be nothing to talk about.

It is no piece of cake to raise a family of four on $99,000 a year. Why do you privilege one figure as poor and not these other figures? Why do you draw the line at Somerby's low income figure instead of where the government does (for poverty) but instead want to decide some other boundary? Why not put it where it belongs (e.g., higher) instead of using the school lunch program cutoff, a convenience of history, as if it were a meaningful cutoff?

TDH has made the point that these students that qualify for free or reduced lunch should not necessarily be factored in as having a significant negative impact on comparative test scores because a) they are not technically below the poverty line, and b) they are 47.5% of the student population (as low as 32% in Conn, and as high as 72% in DC).

Others have made the point that although they do not technically count as being below the poverty line, they still struggle with many difficulties of limited income, and that this struggle appears to be beyond Bob's empathy.

My parents' parents were poor immigrants. My parents fed me, expected me to do well in public school and put a roof over my head. They took me to church and talked about right and wrong. None of us were permitted to view ourselves as victims of being in the 99 percent. None of us went to prison and all prospered. Through the good fortune of honorable parents who cared enough to work, struggle and sacrifice.

The problem is that many people's parents do the same but don't have the same fortunate outcome. They get picked up by immigration or bilked out of their savings or get sick or have an accident at work (without insurance) or are shot standing in the wrong place at the wrong time or work hard but cannot put a roof over their kids head. Do they somehow not care? You seem to think that anyone who does what your parents did would have the same outcome. Life doesn't work like that. Some kids are born with birth defects, others have dyslexia, some parents are not only poor immigrants but illiterate and thus cannot help themselves or their kids. If you imply that they should do as your parents did, you are not simply recognizing your own good fortunate but being a jerk by suggesting that there are no forces larger than individual will that affect people's lives ("victims of being in the 99 percent").

Most children labeled "underprivileged" or "unfortunate" by white liberals fit those definitions because of parents who don't care about them, not because of their race. Most failing, drug addicted, imprisoned people were victims of their parents, not racism. Check your privilege mostly means check your parents, and no one should apologize for having good ones.

The white illegitimacy rate is high too. Does that mean those white kids are underprivileged due to negligent parenting too. Marriage itself is declining. Can you assume any child of unmarried parents is automatically underprivileged? You use the term negligent, like all those parents just sort of forgot to get married.

Can you assume any child of unmarried parents is automatically underprivileged?

Automatically less privileged than one born to married, committed parents. Being born to low income unmarried parents is even worse. Low income unmarried parents who produce children are abusing and neglecting them from they day they are born. Progressives hate the promotion of marriage and family and usually that uncivilized outlook is attributable to their own parents' failures.

Every person born to and raised by their two caring and dedicated parents knows he enjoys a privilege in excess of anything a white face or money would have provided. Tal Fortgang was privileged but not because of his race, because of the dedication of his parents and grandparents who were "underprivileged" under some definitions such as income and initial social status. The pushback from the left over culture and family guarantees those groups disproportionately affected by poverty, lack of education, crime, illegitimacy will never advance.

I hope never to be as resistant to truth. Having dedicated parents who commit themselves to one's welfare is a more important privilege in America in 2014 than skin color. Generations of groups who have abandoned this truth consequently live in misery. The failure of the progressive culture of lazy alternatives and excuses. Observing that progressives recoil at the mention of these ideas reaffirms that the groups and individuals who have rejected these cultural values in favor of sad, defeatist excuses will never advance.

Culture determines outcome, not race or initial social status. Poor immigrants of varied ethnicities succeed and other groups "helped" by progressives for five decades still fail and will always fail.

Dedicated parents with high expectations regarding their children's educational performance and who instill in them morals, family values, and a work ethic are not an abstraction. Those values are the foundations for civilization but they deeply offend the uncivilized and the intellectually and morally underdeveloped.